The Collaboration-Authentic Learning-Tool Mediation (CAT)
Framework: Shifting from a Paradigm of Training towards an Activity
Theory-based Developmental Approach
Alan Amory
Centre for Academic Technologies
University of Johannesburg
South Africa
aamory@uj.ac.za
Abstract: This paper is about a narrative exploration through a Cultural Historical Activity System
lens to support the transformation of individuals as they shift from training to an academic
development paradigm is presented. A move away from training is required to closely align staff
development processes with the institutional position of learning to be part of a knowledge and
practice domain. The interaction with a group of educational consultants in the design, development
and delivery of an academic professional development workshop is explored. A number of tertiary
contradictions arose during the processes that included dialogical, double-stimulation, and
experiential learning approaches. The contradictions were related to disciplinary concerns, staff
technical skills (deficit), application of abstract educational theory (performativity) and an
emphasis on outcomes and not tool-mediated knowledge construction. In this study the expansive
learning cycle not only provided a framework for the exploration, but predicted the outcomes.
However, the abstract notions of tool mediation, which are fundamental to the approach, require
deeper exploration.
Introduction
This narrative is about understanding transformation of people as they move from acting as educational
technology trainers to supporting academics in developing their use of Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) tools in teaching, learning and assessment at a South African university. Amory, Gravett and Van der
Westhuizen (2008) conceptualized learning at this institution as becoming a practitioner of a knowledge and
professional domain, and argued that an information-oriented (recitation of information) approach limited optimal
learning, and that innovative uses of ICT should enrich student experiences. However, the mechanisms provided by
the institution to support teaching and learning with technology were primarily concerned with training staff in the
use of the institutional Learning Management System (LMS). In addition, those members who support the use of
ICTs by the academic community were delegated to roles of technical support staff for the LMS. Therefore, two
primary contradictions initiated this research, including a mismatch between institutional intensions and practice;
and relegation of professional staff members to technical support roles, a learning from technology approach
(Jonassen & Reeves, 1996). This narrative is not only about my own journey in the facilitation of a new theoretical
framework to support institutional goals, but also about the work by the professional members of the Centre for
Academic Technologies, who need to support contemporary learning strategies. This research is underpinned by a
number of theoretical notions, including: expansive learning (Engeström, 2001; Engeström & Sannino, 2010) as part
of the Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Engeström, 1987; Leont’ev, 1978; Vygotsky, 1978), and
authentic learning (Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2004) as the object of the activity as suggested by Amory (2012).
Expansive learning
Based on the ideas of Vygotsky, Leont’ev, Il’enkov, Davydov, Bateson and Bakhtin a number of
theoretical roots underpin expansive learning (Engeström & Sannino, 2010):
1. Supporting the concept of division of labour within a community – a separation of action and activity –
expansive learning is a movement from actions to activity;
2. With respect to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, expansive learning is “a space for expansive
transmission of actions to activity” (p. 4);
3.
Within an object-orientated theory the motives and motivations are not within individual actors, but are in the
object to be transformed and expanded by a community;
4. Contradictions, as in other activity systems, are the most important driving forces associated with expansive
learning;
5. During such a model that supports the dialectical method, learning activity moves from the abstract to the
concrete;
6. Due to the importance of mediation during expansive learning, formative interventions need to make use of
double stimulation;
7. New forms of learning cannot emerge through individual actions but require co-operation to punch a new form
of activity; and
8. The concept of multi-voiceness (heteroglossia) as part of the expansive processes of negotiation and
orchestration.
Furthermore, Engeström (2001) detailed a number of steps that make up the expensive learning sequence,
including: 1. Questioning, criticizing or rejecting accepted practice (primary contradiction); 2. Analyzing the current
situation (secondary contradiction); 3. Modeling a new simplified solution to the problem; 4. Examining the model;
5. Implementing the mode (tertiary contradiction – resistance); 6. Reflecting on and evaluating the outcomes of the
new state (quaternary contradiction); and 7. Consolidation of the new practice. These epistemic actions are integral
to the conceptualization of the developments reported here. In addition, CHAT is used as a heuristic to detail these
actions, as part of the theoretical development in defining the CAT framework, and to support the design of an
academic professional workshop (Amory, 2013).
Cultural Historical Activity Theory
Figure 1: Activity system diagram (redrawn from Engeström, 2008)
Contemporary CHAT is built on the subject-object-tool triad (Vygotsky, 1978), social collaboration
(Leont’ev, 1978) and the more recent extensions of rules, community and division of labor (Engeström, 1987)
(Figure 1). Leont’ev (1978) posited that human activity takes places within a cultural and social context and is a
process of engagement and action in which one, or more, actors transform an Object. For Stetsenko (2005), Objects
are cultural entities that embody communal social practices and during human activity are transformed and further
developed. The Object of the activity is one of the most important concepts of activity theory (Kaptelinin, 2005) and
is the prime unit of analysis in the system (Engeström, 2001) and, with motive, gives the system its coherence
(Engeström, 2000). The Outcomes of any activity result from Actors interrogating Objects by means of Tools that
mediate the interactions (production). In addition, the Rules mediate relationships between Actors and the
Community (exchange), the Division of Labour mediates between the Community and the Object (distribution) and
the Community between the Actors and Object (consumption) (Engeström, 1987, 2000, 2001; Barab, Evans, & Baek,
2004; Roth & Lee, 2007). The social action subsystem of consumption, production, distribution, and exchange
support the exploration of complex social interactions (the engagement) that are made up of multiple strings of
actions that are neither linear nor aligned (Engeström, 2008). However, the concept of tool mediation requires
additional explication as this concept is of great importance to the work presented here.
Wertsch (2007) posited that mediation may be either explicit or implicit. Explicit mediation involves the
intentional introduction of a tool, or sign, into an existing activity that is obvious (double simulation). Implicit
mediation is less noticeable but involves signs, especially language (higher order cognitive action). However, for
Vygotsky mediation also includes reflective actions. Reflective mediation is about thinking about the tool or sign
while undertaking an action, while during non-reflective activity the actor is concentrated on the particulars of a task
without thought of the tool or sign. Whether mediation operates through direct intervention, or through language and
signs, individual transformation includes both explicit (tools and signs operating on other minds) and implicit
(internal tools and signs actions) modes of mediation.
Amory (2012) proposed a number of declarative design principles including the ideas that activity theory
supports course design and evaluation. In addition, he argued that authentic learning tasks (Brown, Collins, &
Duguid, 1989; Newmann, Bryk, & Nagaoka, 2001; Reeves et al., 2004; Smeets, 2005) promote effective learning.
Furthermore, a number of procedural design principles were presented, including the use of the activity diagram as a
heuristic to conceptualize course design, implementation of authentic learning tasks to become the Object of the
activity, and incorporation of educational technologies as tools to facilitate knowledge construction (a learning with
technology position). The principles of authentic learning are briefly given in order to more fully understand this
activity system-authentic learning hybrid approach.
Brown et al. (1989) argued that cognitive apprenticeships included collective problem solving, displaying
multiple roles, confrontation of ineffective strategies and misconceptions, and developing collaborative work skills
as part of authentic activities. In addition, Smeets (2005) posited that for the learning environment to be successful it
should include rich contexts, authentic tasks, active, autonomous learning and co-operative learning. The work
reported here makes use of the authentic task definition from the work of Reeves et al. (2004) rather than the more
recent conceptualization by Herrington, Reeves and Oliver (2009), who describe the system using more abstract
concepts, and thereby making the concept more difficult for inexperienced lecturers.
Figure 2: The Collaborative-Authentic Task-Tool Mediation (CAT) framework
Therefore, the core theoretical positions that are part of this investigation posit authentic learning as the
Object supported through collaborative and tool-mediated systems (Figure 2). I refer to this as the CollaborativeAuthentic task-Tool mediated (CAT) framework. This paper is concerned with the use of this CAT framework to
support professional staff members, with at least a master’s degree, shifting from acting as trainers towards an
activity-based development approach to support the institutional objective of learning with technology. The first
steps in an expansive learning cycle, questioning (primary contradiction) and parts of analyzing (secondary
contradiction) are described above. Next the design and context of the study is provided and thereafter the other
steps of this expansive cycle are explored using CHAT as a heuristic (Beatty & Feldman, 2012).
Material and methods
The research paradigm is defined as a constructivist-hermeneutic-interpretivist-qualitative design (Reeves
& Hedberg, 2003) as the theoretical underpinning is constructivist; actions are related to the development of people
for a new academic professional curriculum (hermeneutic): the narrative presented is reflective in nature and written
from my own ideological position making use of field notes, meeting and workshop summaries, participant
artefacts, and participant contributions of their own positions (interpretivist); and the use of an inductive qualitative
approach.
The study is part of the staff development in the Centre for Academic Technologies that support the
institutional LMS and other educational and research technologies. In addition, the Centre provides Community
Support and Development, Technical Support and Development and a Teaching and Learning Consultancy. The
Centre is part of the institutional academic development and support environment. Participants in this research are
the six members of the Teaching and Learning Consultancy who hold at least a Master’s degree (purposeful
sampling) and are referred to as consultant participants in order to differentiate between them and the institutional
participants who engaged with the developed workshop.
Results
This section follows the developmental stages of consultant participants as they engaged with the
theoretical concepts (as discussed above) and associated praxis to shift from an identity of technical consultant
toward a role to support activity-based learning with technology within the institutional community. One of the
consequences of such a change process is the inevitable tertiary and quaternary contradictions. Thereafter,
participants state their own positions in relationship to their journey.
Dialogical engagement with authentic learning as the object of the activity
Figure 3: Activity system of consultant participants investigating authentic learning as the object of the activity
The dialogical activity to develop an understanding of authentic learning as the Object included a number
of mediating artefacts (CAT framework, readings on authentic learning, background to authentic learning as the
Object of an activity, and examples of authentic tasks – made available prior to the first interaction), and also
included the consultant participants and myself (Figure 3). In the discussion the core CAT framework concepts were
explored, debated and interrogated. While the consultant participants agreed that the CAT framework was an
appropriate scaffold for our work, none of these participants raised any associated complexities that might be
associated with the model. I thought that individual and group exploration of these artefacts would build the
necessary insights into the theoretical underpinning. However, as it will become evident later (tertiary and
quaternary contradictions), I paid insufficient attention to the possibility that there might be individual
misunderstandings of some, if not all, of these theoretical constructs. Nevertheless, this dialogical engagement
initiated a complex series of interactions. At the end of this session it was agreed that the consultant participants
would, working in pairs, use the CAT framework to design an authentic learning task suitable for academic
professional development.
Use of double stimulation to design a learning task
Figure 4: Activity system of practitioner developing an authentic learning task
The activity (Figure 4) associated with the design of an authentic task for academic professional
development (the Object) was mediated first by the CAT framework, and then by an instrument derived from this
framework and a number of papers on game-based learning (Tools − double stimulation). No Outcome (authentic
task) was realized through this activity. I then created an authentic task that asked the consultant participants to
evaluate a game-based research paper using a scale instrument based on the CAT theoretical framework to
investigate the underlying pedagogy associated with the paper. This is an example of double stimulation where an
extrinsic tool (CAT framework instrument) mediates knowledge construction related to the authentic task
(evaluation of pedagogical designs in game-based learning). Consultant participants reported that the exercise did
not work. However, on further discussion it became obvious that they did not use the instrument, as a material tool,
to explore the pedagogy design used in the papers. As a consequence we decided that I would design the workshop.
I therefore created the workshop that makes use of the instrument based on the CAT framework to evaluate
a number of game-based pedagogical designs and to create an authentic learning activity (Amory, 2013). Review of
the workshop design by the consultant participants raised a number of issues. In particular, a number of arguments
came strongly to the fore. First, the game-based research papers were argued to be outside the practices and domain
knowledge of the potential target audience – the academic members of staff – and therefore of little value. Second,
“my staff” (those that I work with) “won’t/can’t understand/grasp/relate to” some concepts [a reductionist view].
Third, the limited technical experience of academic members needed to be considered. To address the first two
issues I invited staff members to find alternative research articles that could function in place of the game-based
research papers.
Papers submitted by the consultant participants included four articles describing authentic learning, one on
resistance to staff development and three papers on the use of particular ICTs in the classroom. None, in my opinion,
could replace the papers I had selected as none of them included different pedagogical approaches to teaching with
technology. Clearly, the underlying principles of authentic learning as the Object of the activity, and material toolmediation were not understood by the consultant participants. These analyses and exploration theory-praxis cycles
yielded little personal transformation in understanding the learning with technology perspective. I therefore decided
to try another avenue to support individual and community transformation: participant as part of the expert
evaluation team (experiential learning).
Use of experiential learning to understand the design of tool-mediated authentic learning activity
Figure 5: Activity system of practitioner participating in the authentic learning task-based workshop
The design, implementation and evaluation of this professional workshop are more fully described by
Amory (2013). However, the overall design (Figure 5) makes use of the CAT framework to support the development
of tool-mediated learning activity designs. The workshop is divided into two sections: participants’ role play − first
as a student and thereafter as a learning activity designer. The activities of the academic professional workshop
included the use of a number of ICT tools that mediate activity in different ways (Figure 5 and 6). The underlying
philosophical approach is to support experiential learning. Both consultant and institution participants were involved
in the expert review of the workshop. I thought that after a number of iterative participations in this workshop, the
teaching and learning consultant participants would develop an understanding of the concepts and would thereafter
be able to facilitate similar workshops.
However, such an expectation was premature. As the teaching and learning consultants took over the
responsibility of the delivery of the academic professional workshop the tension in the Centre became almost
palatable – underlying tensions were apparent and after a particular disastrous workshop tensions exploded. After
six months of development and constructivist support the same rhetorical comments and tertiary contradictions resurfaced: 1. Staff do not understand why they should explore games in the workshop; 2. Staff do not relate to….;
and 3. Staff are technological inept. In order to better understand the consultant participants’ concerns I invited them
to write a short academic argument of their personal position in relationship to the CAT framework as presented in
the current workshop and to identify at least three key principles that could be used to drive the introduction of the
CAT framework.
Intervention to overcome tertiary contradiction
The documents written by the consultant participants were read, evaluated and facilitated by a colleague
(an expert in curriculum design) to identify relevant themes. This colleague found that consultant participants wrote
that they supported the CAT framework but thought that this was a large paradigm shift for them. They argued that
the academic professional workshop required customization, that the tasks are too complicated for the academic
staff members and should include wider communication of the objectives of the professional workshop to the
institutional community. Other perceptions included that they themselves were not yet experts, academic staff
expected LMS training, relevance of articles, cognate difficulty of the CAT framework, and a requirement for more
choices to support individual knowledge domains. They suggested that tasks should be disciplinary based, future
developments were needed to support academic staff members’ further development, the workshop be redesign
(minority view) by conversion of an existing course to support authentic learning principles. Careful reading of these
comments point directly to the tertiary contradictions: 1. Use of game-based research; 2. Staff do not relate to ….;
and 3. Staff need technical support/training. A discussion of the design principles for each task (Figure 6) was then
undertaken. It is interesting to note that only after this deconstruction and individual reconstruction of the
Workshop outline
YouTube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soAk3F0wX9s&list=PL0B358C82642BAE5
3&index=1
Introductions: via a discussion forum
Activity 1: Your HOD has just had one of those cathartic moments:
game-based learning is the way to go! While this may be an interesting
development, the HOD has asked you, as one of the productive researchers in
your department, to undertake a small research project to evaluate how games,
one of the most complex technologies available to teachers, could be used in
teaching and learning. To help you, the HOD has provided you with a number of
papers and a review instrument that you could use to evaluate the teaching
designs and outcomes detailed in each paper. The HOD has requested that your
evaluations should be presented as a mind map to the members of your
department.

Task 1: With a colleague, read the paper abstracts to gain a general
understanding of the ideas, research methodology, results and findings.
You and your partner need to complete the online review for each paper
using the review instrument, a Google form based on the CAT framework.

Task 2: Use this data (Google spreadsheet) collected during the first
activity to visually analyse the data with your colleague and individually
create a mind map using FreeMind for the HOD. Export your mind map
as a PFD file and post it to the forum for group discussion.
Presentation of the CAT framework
Break
Presentation of the TED video on the first AI MOOC and class analysis using
the CAT framework http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_norvig_the_
100_000_student_classroom.html
Activity 2: A lecturer who teaches first-year students with an idea for a
new online learning activity has approached you. The lecturer suggested that a
recent newspaper article, entitled "Fracking up the Karoo" (Sunday Times, 5
August 2012), could be used as part of this activity. The lecturer also requested
that the activity should take about two hours to complete and be based on the
principles associated with authentic learning. Prior to implementing the design,
you have been asked to prepare a presentation to the lecturer's department.
 Task 1: Using the core concepts of authentic learning, social collaboration
and tool/technology mediation knowledge construction (the CAT framework), work with your partner to design the learning activity. Prepare a
presentation of your ideas using Google presentation, a collaborative
authoring tool.
 Task 2: Share your Google presentation with the workshop facilitator for a
class discussion on your task designs.
Workshop evaluation using the CAT framework online instrument
Design principle
Ice breaker – and some fun with social
networking.
Use of forum
Tool-mediated knowledge construction – the
activity has nothing to do with games as
educational technology, but everything to do
with the pedagogical design of the use of such
artefacts in the learning activity.
Use of ICT tools to support data visualization
and transformation in other representations.
Exploring theoretical CAT framework.
To make the point that even with the latest
inventions – MOOCS – pedagogical approach
still mostly instructional.
.
Use of the CAT framework to design a learning
activity that could be in any knowledge domain.
Use of ICT tool to mediate collaboration
Use of instrument to evaluate workshop.
Figure 6: Final workshop element and associated design principle, highlighting explicit versus implicit, and tool
versus sign mediation1 (adapted from Amory, 2013).
1 Think
of explicit mediation as “dropping” a tool into an activity and thus requires some weight; as implicit mediation is about
language and we often use italics to quote someone; and as the use of signs requires higher order functions such mediation is
underlined twice while material tool requires a single underline.
professional workshop did the consultant participants re-conceptualize their own positions and began to view the
new paradigm through an insightful lens. In addition, analyses of the academic professional workshop (Amory,
2013) challenge each of these contradictions: the institutional participants were able to identify the pedagogical
designs embedded in the game-based papers using the CAT framework instrument, they mostly responded very
positively to the workshop, and new technologies that were introduced were successfully used by the participants in
knowledge production. After a month the consultant participants were asked to briefly reflect on their journey and to
describe their current understanding related to the CAT framework mediated knowledge construction. Participation
was voluntary.
Consultant participants voices – heteroglossia
“I had some concerns regarding the introduction of the CAT framework as a tool for professional development,
namely the level of the workshop seemed too high (which might result in academics’ resistance) and my capacity as
an individual to present the workshop. However, engaging in experiential learning interventions, both as a student
and facilitator, assisted me to grasp the essence of the framework. At first I thought it was because I became more
familiar with the content, but I realized that coming from a ‘learning from technology’ background, engaging with
theoretical concepts effectively is not an overnight achievement. It requires a tremendous paradigm shift and intense
knowledge of concepts, coupled with experience, and this might be the same challenge other academics are faced
with. As a result, I was obliged to do some reading on my own and I noticed a remarkable change. At the moment I
am more convinced than before that the framework is of great significance to the transformation of lecturers’
practices, and I am looking forward to it being implemented by the teaching academics.”
“The introduction of the CAT framework was a turning point for me. I was used to working in a technically driven
environment where I trained academics on how to use the learning management system. I tried to incorporate the
pedagogy that influenced the teaching and learning with technology, but it never worked because most academics
doubted my pedagogic knowledge. They saw and still see me as a technical colleague who ‘shows us where to click’.
A year later, I have had an opportunity to give a workshop on the CAT framework. I understand and have found ways
of introducing the authentic learning principles, but still need to give myself more time to grow in presenting the
workshop and introducing the CAT framework. However, I am not certain if academics will want to adopt it into
their teaching practice. The few that I had spoken to seem to be uneasy about it and don’t see the logic on the
workshop structure.”
“Initially I did not understand what was expected of me in the workshop, but this was clarified when I was told that it
was a process and that it would get better with time. I attended the first one, intended for staff, but it was still not
clear to me. It was after attending the second workshop that it became clearer. Although I was not fully confident to
present the workshop, I did so knowing that through presenting, I would have a better understanding. Presenting the
workshop went well even though at first not all the participants could see the value of being there or found it relevant
to their needs. I now see the framework as a valuable heuristic that academics can use in knowledge construction,
although I still think the leap is too much as it takes time to adjust. I believe that the departmental workshops will
yield better results.”
“The implemented professional development course revealed a lack of cognitive skills by the attendees to transfer
the use of technologies to applicable learning activities. The consideration is that higher order skills are situated in
applying mediation towards teaching and learning activities as to ‘engineer’ a learning experience for a learner.
However, only a selected few seem to acquire this skill during the workshop. I am of the meaning that (as set in the
diffusion theory) there are more late adopters than early adopters. Attendees come with the expectation of receiving a
learning software training session instead of experimenting with new and available technologies. Leadership, from
this stance, therefore creates a bipolar continuum: those who spontaneously start using previously introduced learning
technologies and are only now ready to explore new avenues; and those who become leaders in guiding the use of
previous technologies in addition to new, workshop-related technologies.”
“The use of the CAT framework is successful in that it does offer an authentic ‘learning with technology’ experience
to the participants of the workshop. However, not all the lecturing staff is familiar with the CAT framework and
arrives with different expectations, e.g. technology training. They do not come mentally prepared to experience
optimal authentic teaching and learning experiences with ICT. We should therefore make the intention and the
context of this intervention clear to the participants. I also feel that some of the principles relating to using CHAT as a
heuristic tool and cycle of expansive learning were neglected. We need to acknowledge the diverse perspectives and
levels of development of the lecturers. The more advanced lecturing staff experienced this workshop positively, but
also expressed the concern that it was ‘higher grade’ and that the majority of their fellow staff members would not
benefit from it. I conclude that this is an excellent framework and a valuable professional development intervention,
but should still be adapted and refined to address the specific context and experience levels of the diverse lecturer
population.”
Three comments relate to the present situation (tertiary contradictions), two relate to future developments
(quaternary contradictions) and the silent voice of another addresses neither the present nor the future.
Discussion, recommendations and conclusions
A journey of individual and collaborative development is explored, using expansive learning (Engeström,
2001; Engeström & Sannino, 2010) with the teaching and learning consultant as they transform their work from that
of educational technical support staff to supporting activity-based academic professional interventions. The work is
premised on a number of theoretical concepts related to CHAT (Engeström, 1987; Leont’ev, 1978; Vygotsky,
1978), and authentic learning (Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2004) as the Object of the activity (the CAT
framework) as suggested by Amory (2012). This research was initiated due to the contradiction of a mismatch
between the practice of training academic staff in the technical use of an LMS and the institutional intensions: that
conceptualized learning becomes a practitioner of a knowledge and professional domain; that recitation of
information limits optimal learning; and that a need exists to support a learning with technology position (Amory,
Gravett, and van der Westhuizen, 2008). The involvement of the consultant participants in the redesign of the
academic professional workshop to overcome this primary contradiction is the journey under discussion here. There
are a number of ways to explore this journey, including discourses associated with academic training, the theorypraxis divide, and the expansive learning paradigm.
In analyzing resistance to academic training workshops Quinn (2012) identified four contradictory
positions held by participating academic staff. These contradictions related to the discipline (doing research in their
fields), student deficit (students of poor schooling), dismissal of the intellectual complexity of teaching, and
performativity (a focus on structures and outcomes rather than values and processes). The contradictions raised in
this research are no different: discipline (why games), deficit (staff technical skills), performativity (abstract
education theory) and an emphasis on outcomes and not tool-mediated knowledge construction. The predominance
of the training regime in the institution has impacted on the thinking of the consultant participants that required
numerous cyclic interventions (for example, dialogical engagement, double stimulation and expansive learning) to
help support their new individual identities and transformations.
The use of participation and delivery of the workshop, the experiential learning cycle, appeared to help
participants begin to address their tertiary contradictions. While practice-based learning can be seen as an induction
into a community of practice (Wenger, 1998), this approach does not solve the theory-praxis divide as other
contradictions may remain hidden, theoretical aspects are often absent and the renewal of practice outside a
theoretical lens becomes difficult (Elkjaer, 2009). The stages of overcoming individual contradiction appear to
operate over different time scales: some consultant participants addressing tertiary contradiction, while others bring
forth the next level – problems with future activity (quaternary contractions).
No matter how difficult a journey we take, approaches based on sound theoretical underpinnings, such as
expansive learning and more specifically in this project the CAT framework, provide the scaffolding necessary to
design, develop and review complex teaching and learning initiatives. Future engagement needs to provide spaces to
explore the new practices and to address weakness, which in this instance revolved around the abstract concepts of
tool mediation, apparent in the activity.
References
Amory, A. (2011). Pre-service teacher development: A model to develop critical media literacy through computer game-play.
Education as Change, 15(sup1), 111-122.
Amory, A. (2012). Tool-mediated authentic learning in an educational technology course: a designed-based innovation. Retrieved
from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10494820.2012.682584
Amory, A. (2013). The Collaboration-Authentic Learning-Tool Mediation (CAT) Framework: The design, use and evaluation of
an academic professional development workshop. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications, 2013, this volume, Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Amory, A., Gravett, S., & Van der Westhuizen, D. (2008). Teaching and learning at the University of Johannesburg: a position
paper. Retrieved from https://152.106.6.200/handle/10210/4270
Barab, S.A., Evans, M.A., & Baek, E.O. (2004). Activity theory as a lens for characterizing the participatory unit. In D.H.
Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communities and technology (pp. 199-214). Washington, D.C.: Association
for Educational Communication and Technology.
Beatty, I.D., & Feldman, A. (2012). Viewing teacher transformation through the lens of cultural-historical activity theory
(CHAT). Education as Change, 16(2), 283-300.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 3242.
Elkjaer, B. (2009). Pragmatism: A learning theory for the future. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 7489). London and New York: Routledge.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: OrientaKonsultit.
Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and
Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Engeström, Y. (2008). Enriching activity theory without shortcuts. Interacting with Computers, 20(2), 256-259.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational
Research Review, 5(1), 1-24.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2009). A guide to authentic e-learning. Routledge.
Jonassen, D.H., & Reeves, T.C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.
Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4-18.
Leont’ev, A.N. (1978). Activity, personality, and consciousness. Englewoods Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Newmann, F.M., Bryk, A.S., & Nagaoka, J.K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence
(p. 47). Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/p0f02.pdf
Quinn, L. (2012). Understanding resistance: an analysis of discourses in academic staff development. Studies in Higher
Education, 37(1), 69-83.
Reeves, T.C., & Hedberg, J.G. (2003). Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational
Technology Publications.
Reeves, T.C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 52(4), 53-65.
Roth, W.M., & Lee, Y.J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Review of Educational
Research, 77(2), 186-232.
Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers & Education, 44,
343-355.
Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind,
Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 70-88.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J.V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp.
178-192). New York: Cambridge University Press.